questions on The Death of the Object

How was avant-garde a useful vehicle for the radicalism of the late 60's art?

The newly emerged ideas of society and radicalism could utilize the avant-gard as a medium to express sentiments freely, without contrains of tradition or the past. But Futurism and Cubism, looking at one object or idea at many angles and instances, could also have been useful in expressing activism towards the establishment. So I wonder if it was just a product of the times.

How did patriotism and radicalism come together in Magrittes depiction of two femur bones painted with the Belgian Flag? And why was there such a move to depict radical juxtapositions of objects or ideas in single pieces of art?

I think to place things in their social context, artists such as Magrittes, violence and pessimism of WWII influenced painters, as well as the minimalist pop and conceptual artists. This could be seen to have led to simple representations of unrelated and disjointed objects. This may not have been simply for shock value, but to exemplify that radical change could seem eerily normal.

Questions

What was the appeal of "conceptual art" that connected the "verbal concept and artistic form"?

The reading states that modern art is defined by context.  Without the safehaven of a museum to harbor these art objects, they become "vulnerable, invisible even".  Can we appreciate modern art out of context or do we need to be able to first see an object as art for it to hold artistic value?

I feel that a decent amount of modern art cannot be understand with the context of a museum, notably Duchamp's readymades.  Outside of a museum, I would not see the value of a signed toilet or a snowshovel.  However, the artistic value of these objects doesn't lie in the physical appearance but the intellectual process behind it.  The placement in a museum is the catalyst that provides the initial thinking about the object at a higher level, in terms of its intellectual merit and significance.

The Death of the Object

How do the art pieces of Pop art compare to the modern art that came out during the 1970’s? How are the portrayals of women similar or different within both these times? Is this mostly a product of the time and the world around?

In the topic of Pop art the subject was women was mostly through a male perspective. The female body was objectified and made very important to the collages. In the 1970’s because of the times and the women’s movement, there was a platform to portray women in a different light with The Dinner Party, “consisted of a triangular table with places set with ceramic vulvas and embroidered ‘runners’ for 39 imaginary female guest” (Hopkins 183). The female perspective was a challenge to the domineering ‘masculinist’ cultural viewpoint of the time.

David Hopkins “After Modern Art 1945-2000” beings discussing minimalism on page 169. So for clarification, what is Minimalism? Where did it branch out of? Was it a reaction to something?

The Move to Conceptualism

1. The philosophy of Conceptual art was to remove it from the confines of canvases and sculptures and free art by only defining it by the idea of its design. As a result, art no longer relies on viewer interpretation, but on the knowledge of the idea responsible for its creation. Isn’t this paradoxical considering the viewer is once again confined to their interpretation by what the artist tells them their artwork means?
2. Why do Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades” represent the beginning of Conceptual art?
Duchamp’s “readymades” redefined the medium used to portray art. Duchamp’s art was a rebellion against the confines of traditional art and consumerism.

What role do museums and the context of artwork play in determining what is considered art?
Is there artwork that would still be considered art when taken out of context? Where is the line drawn between art and not art, when taken out of context?
Can art be created by a non-artist? can it be created accidentally? by non-humans, or by some natural process? I imagine a painting could be found, the artist unknown, and considered artwork. But what if the painting resembled an abstract impressionist's work, conveying the depths of the artist's emotions, and it had only been the result of a paint can spilling or exploding spontaneously? What about paintings created by babies, or created by elephants? Is the elephant the artist in this case? or is the elephant the medium used by the trainer to create the art? What's the point in even trying to define art? I'm just feeling more and more unsure that there's even the start of an answer.


At what point did artistic revolution become so... dramatic? Maybe I am just underestimating the reaction of artists around the time perspective was invented but I mean... Some guys paint some lines, and I guess that's it. I hope you enjoyed painting while it lasted because now it is DEAD.

Questions

1. Ever since the beginnings of art, males were depicted as the more dominant gender. However, the 1970s gave rise to a new way of thinking; females had found the courage to make their voices heard. In what ways was Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party a bold statement as to where women stood in the modern era?

The table installation meant for 39 imaginary female guests (along with 999 invitees) known as The Dinner Party serves as a tribute to the many women who played a significant role in the world's history. Back then, it was common to just brush aside the accomplishments of females and highlight anything achieved by a male, simply because men were considered the superior gender. By acting as a sort of reminder of the works of these female writers and artists, Judy Chicago sort of presents an "in your face" work of art to society.

2. Chris Burden's Shoot was an example of Body Art and Performance where he basically asked one of this friends to literally shoot him in the arm , causing a deep wound to his body. As shocking and revolutionary as it seems, when is enough, enough in terms of art?

Questions

The article mentions declarations placed in museums that “implied that museums obscure the ideological functioning of images via the imposition of spurious value judgments or taxonomies” (165).

While this dematerialization as a resistance to galleries, museums, and the market was an attempt to reject capitalist notions within the art realm, it became a part of the market itself. As Hopkins states, the work actually underwent a “rematerialization”, which through its efforts was not truly effective in its goals. Perhaps this points to the way that the market is an armature of art, and even though it may be novel to point out the reliance on commercialism, it is nearly impossible to escape it.

In body art or performance art, how is it possible to express an idea about femininity without eh female becoming an object or a symbol of oppressive use as Kelly noted? Is a strategy to avoid objectification at all costs beneficial, or is a direct representation of gender inequalities effective in itself by exposing the condition?